As long as there have been barstools, there have been men on those barstools debating the most important topics in sports. In this week’s Barstool Debate, Anthony Stalter and John Paulsen discuss the pros and cons of the NBA’s current lottery system and what can be done to fix it.
John: The current NBA lottery system just isn’t working. It was designed to give the worst teams in the league the best draft picks while eliminating (or at least limiting) teams tanking in order to get a better pick. But every March, we start to see teams that are out of the playoff hunt shutting down their “injured” stars while “developing” their younger players. To be fair, these teams aren’t intentionally losing games, but they are intentionally not giving themselves the best chance to win. One way to eliminate this would be to give each lottery team an equal chance at the top (let’s say seven) picks, and go by record after that. Sure, decent teams will occasionally get the top pick (like in 1993, when the 41-41 Orlando Magic landed the #1 pick), but it will eliminate most of the tanking and put a better product on the floor later in the season.
Anthony: I agree that having a system in place that would give all lottery teams a fair shot at the No. 1 pick would eliminate tanking even more, but is it really fair that the fourth- or fifth-worst team gets a shot at the best player in the draft? Look the Spurs the year they drafted Tim Duncan. The only reason they were a lottery team that year was because David Robinson got hurt and missed most of the season. Now they’re a dynasty thanks to that draft. Isn’t there even a better way than giving all lottery teams a shot at the No. 1 pick? I understand that the NBA can’t adopt the NFL’s draft approach and pick just based on win-loss records, but it just doesn’t seem right that a decent team can become great just because they finished in the lottery one year.
John: I guess it depends on whether or not it’s right to reward failure. The idea is for the worst teams to have a shot at the best players so they can improve their teams and increase parity in the league. But look at the lottery this year. The Bulls overcame 1.7% odds to get the overall pick. Chicago was a playoff team two years ago and now it gets to add Derrick Rose or Michael Beasley to its talented roster. Meanwhile, the Heat are picking #2. Of all the teams in the lottery, Miami is the only one with a true superstar to build around and now they get to add whomever the Bulls pass on to a talented core that includes Wade and Shawn Marion. So even without an equal chance, decent teams are still getting the top picks, so why not make all the odds even so that we can at least eliminate tanking at the end of each season? I know that fans that fork out big money for seats want to see the stars play, but if they’re going to a game that features two non-playoff teams in March, chances are they will only get to see the scrubs in action. The most important thing is the product that is put out on the court, and tanking undermines that product.
Anthony: The overall goal in having a lottery is twofold. One, the NBA wants to encourage parity and two, it wants to avoid teams tanking at the end of the year. Unfortunately, it appears that there’s no way to accomplish both. If you want parity, you have to give teams with poor records a shot at the best prospects. But to avoid several teams “resting” their starters at the end of the year in order to get a better pick, you have to have a lottery. And in a lottery, you run the risk of decent teams like the Bulls and Heat coming away with some of the best talent. It seems like a no-win situation.
John: I say that the product that the league puts on the floor should be the priority. Therefore, it is most important to eliminate tanking, so the league should give each team even odds at winning the top seven picks. Then picks #8-#14 should be based on record. That, or devise a win-or-go-home playoff system that would keep some or all of the lottery teams involved until the very end. Maybe seed the top 14 teams in the playoffs and then take the other 16 teams and have a single-elimination tournament that would yield the final two playoff teams. Not only would that be exciting, but it would discourage tanking for most teams as they would still be playing their stars in an attempt to make the playoffs. Whatever the direction, the league should do something. Right now, tanking is running rampant and some good (or at least decent) teams are getting the top picks.
